The Gemara introduces a surprisingly democratic concept when ruling that the rabbinical court should not pronounce a decree that the majority of the community cannot/will not actually fulfill. What’s more, we find the Gemara explaining how certain decrees that were not kept up by the majority of the community were actually nullified by a subsequent rabbinical court. What is this ruling about, and how limited is it?
Horayot 3b
Questions? Comments? Email dinanddaf@gmail.com
- ויקרא ד:יג-יד
וְאִ֨ם כׇּל־עֲדַ֤ת יִשְׂרָאֵל֙ יִשְׁגּ֔וּ וְנֶעְלַ֣ם דָּבָ֔ר מֵעֵינֵ֖י הַקָּהָ֑ל וְ֠עָשׂ֠וּ אַחַ֨ת מִכׇּל־מִצְוֺ֧ת יְ-הֹוָ֛ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂ֖ינָה וְאָשֵֽׁמוּ׃
If it is the community leadership of Israel that has erred and the matter escapes the notice of the congregation, so that they do any of the things which by God’s commandments ought not to be done, and they realize guilt—
וְנֽוֹדְעָה֙ הַֽחַטָּ֔את אֲשֶׁ֥ר חָטְא֖וּ עָלֶ֑יהָ וְהִקְרִ֨יבוּ הַקָּהָ֜ל פַּ֤ר בֶּן־בָּקָר֙ לְחַטָּ֔את וְהֵבִ֣יאוּ אֹת֔וֹ לִפְנֵ֖י אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃
when the sin through which they incurred guilt becomes known, the congregation shall offer a bull of the herd as a sin offering, and bring it before the Tent of Meeting.
- הוריות ג:
אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן: מֵאָה שֶׁיָּשְׁבוּ לְהוֹרוֹת – אֵין חַיָּיבִין עַד שֶׁיּוֹרוּ כּוּלָּן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״וְאִם כׇּל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ״, עַד שֶׁיִּשְׁגּוּ כּוּלָּן [עַד שֶׁתִּפְשׁוֹט הוֹרָאָה בְּכׇל עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל] אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרַב הוֹשַׁעְיָא: הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דִּבְכָל הַתּוֹרָה כּוּלָּהּ קַיְימָא לַן רוּבּוֹ כְּכוּלּוֹ, וְהָכָא כְּתִיב ״כׇּל הָעֵדָה״ – הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ, אֲפִילּוּ הֵן מֵאָה…
§ Rabbi Yonatan says: Even in the case of one hundred judges who convened to issue a ruling and erred, they are not liable to bring an offering unless they all issue that ruling, as it is stated with regard to liability to bring the offering: “And if the entire assembly of Israel shall act unwittingly” (Leviticus 4:13). From the term “entire” it is derived that the judges are not liable until they all act unwittingly, and the ruling must disseminate and be adopted throughout the entire assembly of Israel, i.e., the Sanhedrin. Rav Huna, son of Rav Hoshaya, said: So too it is reasonable to conclude this, as throughout the entire Torah we maintain the principle: The legal status of the majority of an entity is considered like all of that entity, and here: “The entire assembly,” is written. Since it is so, a majority does not suffice. Even if they are one hundred judges, they are liable only if the erroneous ruling was unanimous…
מֵתִיב רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא: סָמְכוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְעַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי צָדוֹק, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: אֵין גּוֹזְרִין גְּזֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רוֹב הַצִּבּוּר יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמוֹד בָּהּ,
Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yonatan from a baraita: Our Sages relied on the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and on the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, who would say: One does not issue a decree upon the congregation unless the majority of the congregation is able to withstand it.
וְאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַבָּא: מַאי קְרָא? ״בַּמְּאֵרָה אַתֶּם נֵאָרִים וְאֹתִי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים הַגּוֹי כֻּלּוֹ״. וְהָא הָכָא דִּכְתִיב ״הַגּוֹי כֻּלּוֹ״, וְרוּבָּא כְּכוֹלָּא דָּמֵי, תְּיוּבְתָּא דְּרַבִּי (יוֹחָנָן) [יוֹנָתָן]. תְּיוּבְתָּא.
And Rav Adda bar Abba said: What is the verse from which this principle is derived? It is derived from the verse: “With the curse you are cursed, yet you rob Me, the entire nation” (Malachi 3:9). The verse is referring to the oath taken by the entire people to observe the halakhot of tithes, and they violated those halakhot. But here it is written: “The entire nation,” and yet, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, relied on this verse to derive that the legal status of the majority of an entity is like that of the entire entity, and therefore if a majority of the congregation can withstand the decree the court may issue it. The Gemara concludes: The refutation of the opinion of Rabbi Yonatan is indeed a conclusive refutation.
The needs of the community/Before the fact
- תוספתא סנהדרין ב:ו (דפוס וילנא)
…רשב”ג ור’ אלעזר בן ר’ צדוק אומרים אין מעברין את השנה ואין עושין כל צרכי צבור אלא על תנאי כדי שיקבלו רוב הצבור עליהם.
…R. Shimon ben Gamliel and R. Elazar ben R. Zadok say: They may not add a month to the calendar or fulfill any of the needs of the community except on condition that most of the community will accept them.
- תוספתא סוטה סוף פרק טו
אמ’ ר’ ישמעאל מיום שחרב בית המקדש, דין הוא שלא לאכל בשר, ושלא לשתות יין, אלא שאין בית דין גוזרין על הצבור דברים שאין יכולין לעמוד בהן. הוא היה אומ’ הואיל ועוקרין את התורה מבינותינו, נגזר על העולם שהוא שמם, שלא לישא אשה, ושלא להוליד בנים, ושלא להקים שבוע בן, עד שלא שיכלה זרעו של אברהם מאליו. אמרו לו מוטב להן לצבור שיהו שוגגין, ואל יהו מזידין…
Rabbi Yishmael said, “From the day the Temple was destroyed, it would have been logical not to eat meat or drink wine, but no court can decree for the people things that they cannot abide by. He used to say, “Since they have uprooted the Torah from among us, let us decree upon the world that it be desolate – not to marry a wife, not to have children, and not to circumcise, until the seed of Abraham has been destroyed by itself.” They said to him, “It is better for the community to do this mistakenly than to violate this on purpose.”
- בבא קמא עט:
מַתְנִי׳ אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; אֲבָל מְגַדְּלִין בְּסוּרְיָא, וּבַמִּדְבָּרוֹת שֶׁל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל…
MISHNA: One may not raise small domesticated animals, i.e., sheep and goats, in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael, as they graze on people’s crops. But one may raise them in Syria, despite the fact that with regard to many other halakhot Syria is treated like Eretz Yisrael, and in the wilderness of Eretz Yisrael…
גמ’ …תַּנְיָא אִידַּךְ: אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל; אֲבָל מְגַדְּלִין בַּמִּדְבָּר שֶׁבִּיהוּדָה, וּבַמִּדְבָּר שֶׁבִּסְפַר עַכּוֹ. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמְרוּ אֵין מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה, אֲבָל מְגַדְּלִין בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה; לְפִי שֶׁאֵין גּוֹזְרִין גְּזֵרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רוֹב צִבּוּר יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמוֹד בָּהּ.
Gemara…It is taught in another baraita: One may not raise small domesticated animals in settled areas of Eretz Yisrael. But one may raise them in the wilderness that is in Judea and in the wilderness that is on the border near Akko. And even though the Sages said that one may not raise small domesticated animals, nevertheless, one may raise large, domesticated animals, i.e., cattle, because the Sages issue a decree upon the public only if a majority of the public is able to abide by it.
בְּהֵמָה דַּקָּה אֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, בְּהֵמָה גַּסָּה אִי אֶפְשָׁר לְהָבִיא מֵחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ.
This difference is that it is possible for someone to bring small domesticated animals from outside of Eretz Yisrael in the event that they are needed. But it is not possible for someone to bring large, domesticated animals from outside of Eretz Yisrael whenever he needs one, since there is a constant need for them as beasts of burden. Therefore, the Sages did not issue a decree with regard to these types of animals.
Even after the fact
- בבלי עבודה זרה לה:
מַתְנִי׳ וְאֵלּוּ דְּבָרִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין אִיסּוּרָן אִיסּוּר הֲנָאָה: חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ גּוֹי וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ, וְהַפַּת וְהַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁלָּהֶן. רַבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ הִתִּירוּ הַשֶּׁמֶן…
MISHNA: This mishna lists items belonging to gentiles which it is prohibited to consume, but from which it is permitted to derive benefit. And these are items that belong to gentiles and are prohibited, but their prohibition is not that of an item from which deriving benefit is prohibited: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew did not see him performing this action, and their bread and oil. The mishna notes that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court permitted the oil of gentiles entirely…
- ירושלמי שבת א:ד, דף ג’ עמוד ד’
שַׁמָנָן. מִי אָסַר אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן. רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר. דָּנִיאֵל אָסַר אֶת הַשֶּׁמֶן…
Their oil. Who forbade the oil? Rav Jehudah said, Daniel forbade it…
וּמִי הִתִּירוֹ? רִבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ הִתִּירוּ בַשֶּׁמֶן…
And who allowed it? Rebbe and his court allowed the use of gentile oil…
רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בָּעֵי. וְלֹא כֵן תַּנִּינָן. שֶׁאֵין בֵּית דִּין יָכוֹל לְבַטֵּל דִּבְרֵי בֵית דִּין חֲבֵירוֹ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה גָדוֹל מִמֶּנּוּ בַחָכְמָה וּבַמִּינְיָין. וְרִבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ מַתִּירִין מַה שֶׁאָסַר דָּנִיֵּאל וַחֲבוּרָתוֹ. אֶלָּא רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן כְּדַעְתֵּיהּ. דָּמַר רִבִּי יוֹחָנָן בְּשֵׁם רִבִּי לָעָזָר בֵּירִבִּי צָדוֹק. מְקוּבָּל אֲנִי שֶׁכָּל גְּזֵירָה שֶׁבֵּית דִּין גּוֹזְרִין עַל הַצִּיבּוּר וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ רוֹב הַצִּיבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶן אֵינָהּ גְּזֵירָה. וּבָדְקוּ וּמָצְאוּ גְּזֵירָה שֶׁלְּשֶׁמֶן וְלֹא קִיבְּלוּ רוֹב הַצִּיבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶן.
Rebbi Joḥanan asked: Did we not state, “for no court may invalidate the words of another court unless it be greater in wisdom and numbers”? And Rebbi and his court permit what Daniel and his companions forbade? Rebbi Joḥanan follows his own opinion, for Rebbi Joḥanan said in the name of Rebbi Eleazar ben Rebbi Ṣadoq, I have a tradition that any restrictive edict passed by a court which is not accepted by the majority of the public is not an edict. They checked and found in the matter of the edict about oil and did not find that a majority of the public followed it.
- בבלי עבודה זרה לו.-:
אָמַר רַב מְשַׁרְשְׁיָא:…שֶׁמֶן לֹא פָּשַׁט אִיסּוּרוֹ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר אַבָּא אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן: יָשְׁבוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ וּבָדְקוּ עַל שֶׁמֶן שֶׁלֹּא פָּשַׁט אִיסּוּרוֹ בְּרוֹב יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְסָמְכוּ רַבּוֹתֵינוּ עַל דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וְעַל דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר צָדוֹק, שֶׁהָיוּ אוֹמְרִים: אֵין גּוֹזְרִין גְּזֵירָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר אֶלָּא אִם כֵּן רוֹב צִבּוּר יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמוֹד בָּהּ, דְּאָמַר רַב אַדָּא בַּר אַהֲבָה: מַאי קְרָא?
Rav Mesharshiyya said:…oil, its prohibition did not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and therefore it can be voided. As Rabbi Shmuel bar Abba says that Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Our Sages sat and inspected the matter of gentiles’ oil and determined that its prohibition had not spread among the majority of the Jewish people, and our Sages relied upon the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and upon the statement of Rabbi Elazar bar Tzadok, who would say: The Sages issue a decree upon the community only if most of the community is able to abide by it. As Rav Adda bar Ahava said: What is the verse from which it is derived?
״בַּמְּאֵרָה אַתֶּם נֵאָרִים וְאֹתִי אַתֶּם קֹבְעִים הַגּוֹי כֻּלּוֹ״, אִי אִיכָּא גּוֹי כּוּלּוֹ — אִין, אִי לָא — לָא.
It is the verse: “You are cursed with the curse, yet you rob Me, even this whole nation” (Malachi 3:9). This teaches that if there is the acceptance of the whole nation, yes, an ordinance may be instituted, but if not, no, the ordinance may not be instituted.
Invalid or capable of being annulled?
- רמב”ם הלכות ממרים ב:ו-ז
הֲרֵי שֶׁגָּזְרוּ בֵּית דִּין גְּזֵרָה וְדִמּוּ שֶׁרֹב הַקָּהָל יְכוֹלִין לַעֲמֹד בָּהּ. וְאַחַר שֶׁגְּזָרוּהָ פִּקְפְּקוּ הָעָם בָּהּ וְלֹא פָּשְׁטָה בְּרֹב הַקָּהָל הֲרֵי זוֹ בְּטֵלָה וְאֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין לָכֹף אֶת הָעָם לָלֶכֶת בָּהּ:
If a court issued a decree, thinking that the majority of the community could uphold it and after the decree was issued, the majority of the community raised contentions and the practice did not spread throughout the majority of the community, the decree is nullified. The court cannot compel the people to accept it.
גָּזְרוּ וְדִמּוּ שֶׁפָּשְׁטָה בְּכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעָמַד הַדָּבָר כֵּן שָׁנִים רַבּוֹת וּלְאַחַר זְמַן מְרֻבֶּה עָמַד בֵּית דִּין אַחֵר וּבָדַק בְּכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְרָאָה שֶׁאֵין אוֹתָהּ הַגְּזֵרָה פּוֹשֶׁטֶת בְּכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל. יֵשׁ לוֹ רְשׁוּת לְבַטֵּל וַאֲפִלּוּ הָיָה פָּחוּת מִבֵּית דִּין הָרִאשׁוֹן בְּחָכְמָה וּבְמִנְיָן:
Sages issued a decree and thought that it spread among the entire Jewish people and the situation remained unchanged for many years. After a long duration of time, another court arose and checked throughout the Jewish community and saw that the observance of this decree had not spread throughout the Jewish community, it has the authority to negate the decree even if it is of lesser stature than the original court in wisdom and in number of adherents.
- תוספות ע”ז לו: ד”ה אי איכא
אי איכא גוי כולו אין אי לא לא – פי’ אינה חלה כשאר גזירות ויכולה להתבטל אף בב”ד קטן מיהו חלה היא לענין שצריכה שום היתר שהרי שמן נהגו בו איסור עד שבא רבי יהודה והתירו:
If there is an entire nation, there is (a curse); if not, there is not – meaning, it does not apply like other decrees and can be annulled even in a lesser rabbinic court. However it does apply to the extent that it requires formal nullification – for they considered gentile oil prohibited until Rabbi Yehuda came and permitted it:
What about the Minority?
- שו”ת מהר”ח אור זרוע רכ”ב
…והא דאמר (שם ס’ ב’) אין גוזרין גזירה על הציבור אלא אם כן יכולין רוב הציבור לעמוד בה ומשמע הא אם יכולין רוב הציבור לעמוד בה גוזרין אפילו על המיעוט שאין יכולין לעמוד בה, י”ל דההיא לא מיירי להוציא ממון מיד אדם אבל להוציא ממון כי הכא לא ועוד שצווח כנגדם ואומר איני יכול לכנוס בגזרתם…
…And that which it “We make no decree upon the public unless the majority of the public can abide by it,” and it sounds like so long as the majority of the public can abide by it, they will even decree upon the minority who cannot abide by it – We can answer that this is not about a case of taking money from people; rather, if the decree involves taking money as it does here, it does not apply to the minority; moreover, he shouted before them and said, “I cannot abide by their decree.”
